AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Satapathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, provision for filing revised return under Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 is by sub-section (5) in section 33. The provision is in respect of those assesses, who after having filed return, discovered that some more tax is to be paid. By circular dated 20th September, 2017 there was direction that the dealer should have revised his return on account of voluntary disclosure under section 33(5), within October of the subsequent year. He submits, his client sought refund of excess tax paid. The application was rejected out of hand by relying on the circular, on communication dated 31st July, 2018 made by the Deputy Commissioner. His client petitioned for revision. Impugned is order dated 31st December, 2018, confirming the communication.
Mr. Padhi, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel for the department and submits, counter has been filed. Mr. Satapathy files affidavit dated 18th July, 2023.
Mr. Padhi draws attention to the communication and points out, petitioner (assessee) filed nil return for each quarter in years 2014-15. He then filed belated annual return showing transaction on 18 th January, 2018. In the circumstances, claim for refund stood barred under circulars dated 24th August, 2016 to 20th September, 2017 requiring revised return to be filed by October of subsequent financial year.
Mr. Satapathy in reply draws attention to sub-section (2-a) in section 57, reproduced below.
“57. xxx xxx xxx
(2a). Subject to other provisions of the Act, the Commissioner shall, in such manner and within such time, as may be prescribed, refund to a dealer, any amount of tax, deducted at source in respect of such dealer, in excess of the amount due from him under this Act.”
He then points out that rule 66A in Odisha Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 provides for procedure of filing and dealing with claim for refund. He submits, neither the section nor the rule prescribes a time limit for refund claim to be filed. There is no circular also in prescribing the time. Furthermore, proviso under rule 66A also does not apply to his client’s claim for refund.
We accept submissions made on behalf of petitioner that sub-section (2-a) in section 57 providing for refund does not prescribe a time limit for it to be filed. The Rule 66A provides for procedure including electronic receipt of application and thereupon the assessing authority to refer the case for audit under sub-section (2) of section 51, to determine admissibility of the claim of refund.
Impugned order and the communication are set aside and quashed. Opposite party no.3 is directed to act in terms of procedure provided under rule 66A, for requiring audit report on the claim, regarding its admissibility. Petitioner be informed of the claim on audit, six weeks from date.
The writ petition is disposed of.
……………………….